October 29, 2008 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #588462noitallmrParticipant
I am looking to buy a new pc is it worth waiting for the new Windows called Windows 7 to come out or should I just settle for Vista?
Please, a bit of info on the ins and outs of each…October 29, 2008 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm #673151
noitallmr: you can wait, till 2010 when it is slated for roll-out. just remember, vista was slated for original deployment in ’05. i would get a new pc, and downgrade it to xp. that way, if vista was to become better in the near future (xp was horrible its first year and a half as well, just not this bad) you can always upgrade it back, as you’ll have the license. you’ll need to get the media, but that is not too hard.October 29, 2008 1:55 pm at 1:55 pm #673152ModernGuyParticipant
If you can afford the extra premium, buy a mac, with OS X. It is out now, and is stable now.October 29, 2008 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm #673153think613Member
Depends how desperate you are. You can always upgrade later, but there’s no guarantee that 7 won’t be another Vista. Windows doesn’t have a great track record of getting things right the first time…October 29, 2008 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #673154
Microsoft is numerically challanged:
Windows 95 = Windows 4
Windows 98 = Windows 5
Windows ME = Windows 6
Windows XP = Windows 7
Windows Vista = Windows 8
“Windows 7” = Windows 9October 29, 2008 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #673155feivelParticipant
they are probably thinking like this:
win95 and win98 were very similar. win 98 should have been called win95.8
windows ME, well, they are probably trying to forget it ever existed.October 29, 2008 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #673156
Joseph: no, you are numerically challenged. or at least researchly challenged. 7 is not the version, which is actually going to be 6.1. it is the major release number.
etcOctober 30, 2008 12:52 am at 12:52 am #673157
mariner, there was a Windows 1, Windows 2, and Windows 3(.1) prior to Windows 95. ’95 was referred to as Windows 4.0 during its development, until Microsoft employed a marketing ploy by dropping its traditional numbering system upon its release.October 30, 2008 4:09 am at 4:09 am #673158eric55Participant
just have in mind if you want to downgrade a pc to xp dell is the only one that still has the drivers for xp if you buy hp, compaq etc.. you’ll be stuck with vistaOctober 30, 2008 9:59 am at 9:59 am #673160ujewParticipant
I’m really tired of all the Vista-bashing. Have any of you actually tried it for more than a week?
I’ve actually found Vista to be easier to navigate than XP (breadcrumbs in Explorer, Start Search, etc.), besides having more eye-candy. The driver problems are a thing of the past; by now there should be Vista Drivers for basically all your hardware.
If the User Account Control bugs you to much (& for the average user with Vista SP1, it isn’t as bad as it used to be) you can use TweakUAC .October 30, 2008 11:50 am at 11:50 am #673161
eric55: you are very very wrong. hp, sony, toshiba, and many others all allow downgrades. not for all their machines, but for most.
ujew: you are correct that vista is pretty good now for the home user. in a network environment, it is not so good. the bells and whistles of vista swallow memory on a scale that is uncalled for.October 30, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am #673162
joseph: ok, so there was windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, etc. that has nothing to do with the fact that this is really version 6.1. the number 7 is the number of main releases.October 30, 2008 1:40 pm at 1:40 pm #673163
mariner, pre-95 a major release was denoted with a new number prior to the dot in the version number, and a minor release with a new number after the dot in the version number. So this is how I am counting major releases:
Windows 2.0 (followed by minor release 2.1)
Windows 3.0 (followed by minor release 3.1)
Windows 95 (4th major release) (followed by minor release Widnows 95 OSR2)
Windows 98 (5th) (followed by minor release Windows 98 Second Edition)
Windows ME (6th)
Windows XP (7th) (SP1, SP2, SP3)
Windows Vista (8th)
“Windows 7” (9th major release)
How are you counting differently?January 13, 2010 1:08 am at 1:08 am #673164
1 year ago everyone was talking about “Windows 7- The new Windows” but now that its out, no one is talking about it!
WARNING ABOUT WINDOWS 7 and GOOGLE EARTH:
I upgraded to Windows 7 and tried to install Google Earth 8 on my computer. While it was installing, my screen starting getting fuzzy. Even after install my computer was acting funny. I quickly uninstalled, however it was still happening. I shut down and now my computer is felling better B”H!January 13, 2010 3:58 am at 3:58 am #673165
ok. here goes. DA: check your video drivers…if you can upgrade them.
everyone is talking about 7 you just have to talk to the right people 😀
vista was more user friendly that XP but it was slower and more cumbersome unless your computer was above average.
my computer is quite above average, and i used to use vista. at the time i had problems…but nothing major. i liked vista. but after installing 7 i realized how awful vista truly was. it was slower and much more unstable. windows 7 is much much better than vista because it is faster…it is more stable…it comes standard with 64 bit (which is a big advantage now that most software companies are making 64 bit compatible programs) AND (and i repeat) AND…unlike vista, windows 7 was THOROUGHLY tested by microsoft and the general public, and as such has had most of its quirks bugs and problems worked out already.January 13, 2010 4:24 am at 4:24 am #673166plaidMember
I have 7 – it’s much much better than Vista IMHO!
My advice: wait a bit till new 7 computers prices go down a bit before buying one, since it’s still relatively new.January 13, 2010 4:31 am at 4:31 am #673167JotharMember
Apparently, win95,98 and me all count as one release:
And if you are confused why Windows 7 is the 7th release of Windows, here is another simple explanation:
First Windows version was Windows 1.0. Second was Windows 2.0 and third was Windows 3.0. When Windows NT was released, it was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Windows 95, 98, 98 SE and ME (Millennium Edition) were code versioned as Windows 4.0 as all were using Non-NT kernel or 9x kernel.
Windows 2000 was code versioned as Windows 5.0 and Windows XP as Windows 5.1. Next version was Windows Vista which was code versioned as Windows 6.0. Since Windows 7 is the next Windows version, Microsoft decided to call it Windows 7 for easy and better understanding.January 14, 2010 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #673168
I took “Show Desktop” off my WinXP computer using a flash drive and placed it on my Desktop. Does anybody know how I can “pin” it to the Taskbar?January 15, 2010 12:25 am at 12:25 am #673170plaidMember
Drag it down to the bottom, and it’ll give you the option. If not, right click it and see if it has the option.
However, in the lower right hand corner of your screen (next to the time) is a little rectangle that shows your desktop (preview if you roll over, totally closes everything if you click it)January 15, 2010 10:19 am at 10:19 am #673171A600KiloBearParticipant
I just ordered the mehadrin version of Windows 7. It removes all pictures of women and has a choice between Yiddish and Hungarian interfaces. Instead of anti-virus, it has a built in dybbuk remover.January 15, 2010 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #673172
plaid: Thank you! I just found that little box. I then came to the CR to let everyone know how to do it, however, you beat me too it! Thanks again!!!January 15, 2010 2:32 pm at 2:32 pm #673173
I would suggest to you use Quick Launch. Oh, but they took that out of Windows 7, didn’t
they? Well, no, it’s just hidden!
Quick Launch allows you to pin whatever you want to it. And, the beauty is,
you only have to click once to open your folder, app or doc. I’m usually
working on several projects at the same time, so one click is much better
than the (at least) two clicks to get to whatever’s pinned to Windows
Explorer. Especially when I’m going back and forth.
So, here’s how to resurrect Quick Launch:
Right click the taskbar, ->Toolbars ->New Toolbar. A new window will pop up;
in the folder selection dialog, enter the following:
%userprofile%AppDataRoamingMicrosoftInternet ExplorerQuick Launch
Now, right click the taskbar and uncheck ‘Lock the taskbar.’ Right click on
the divider and uncheck Show Text. Right click the divider again and uncheck
Show Title. There should already be some icons on the new Quick Launch. Grab
the Divider bar and drag it to the far left of your screen (may take several
tries) as shown in the attachment. If you have to, just run right over the
icons for Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer and Media Play. Conversely,
you can also drag the divider for these to the right.January 15, 2010 6:35 pm at 6:35 pm #673175
by the way, the above message I took off of Microsoft Answers (thats why it mentions “as shown in the attachment”)
Good Shabbos, Gut Chodesh un Ah Git Zummer!!January 19, 2010 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #673176haifagirlParticipant
I just got my computer back from the guy who fixed it. It’s a Toshiba computer and it had Vista. I was having terrible problems and last week it just starting locking up all the time. The computer guy told me it’s a known problem that Toshiba computers don’t work well with Vista and he gave me XP. I’m thrilled to be back!January 19, 2010 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #673177
I hate to say it, being a hard-core Linux-FOSS True Believer, but Windows 7 is a good product.January 20, 2010 12:00 am at 12:00 am #673178
haifagirl…NOTHING works well with vista, and anuran…seriously i can understand your desire to stick it to the man with “open-source”…but win7 is the way to go!January 20, 2010 1:16 am at 1:16 am #673179
I wouldn’t go that far, bombmaniac. Macs are good, easy to use and rock-solid. Ubuntu Lounx really is ready for the desktop; does everything except high-end gaming. If you don’t like either, then for the first time I’d say a Windows product is a perfectly good alternative.January 20, 2010 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #673180
linux isnt good for anything having to do with graphics. not really anyway. while there ARE drivers written for linux, linux isnt made for that.
as far as mac goes, mac is fine for your average user, but for anyone looking for a bit more in terms of power, windows is the way to go. the mac OS itself is built to be user friendly not necessarily powerful. plus, in order to get any kine of power out of a mac, you have to spend a ton of $$$ whereas you can get yourself a powerhouse for much less if you use windows (and granted yes linux).
for example, my computer (which i built myself) is running a core 2 quad overclocked to 2.73 ghz, 4 gb of ddr2 ram, and a geforce 8800 gt video card with (at least initially) 500 gb hard drive space. that cost me $850. if you wanted that in mac? that would cost you around $3000 (now less but at the time it was $3000)January 20, 2010 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #673181
I’m REALLY going to disagree with you on the Linux bit. I currently have state-of-the-art graphics cards on my system at work. I’m using them for some very experimental parallel processing which I can’t talk about unless you sign an NDA. Suffice it to say I can make them sit up and beg with the available drivers. My wife’s artwork is done entirely in FOSS graphics tools on her home Debian machine. For the average or even above-average user it works better than well enough. If you want Photoshop or InDesign in particular or are doing high-end pre-press stuff with proprietary Pantone combinations you’re out of luck. But even then, WINE is getting close to running those in Windows emulation.
For the other applications most people use – movies (viewing or making), vector drawing, painting, photo-editing and -sharing, and so on the alternatives really have come far enough that they are viable alternatives for most users.
And for the hundreds of dollars you save by neglecting the Microsoft tax you can get more RAM or a better card and make up the difference.
If you like Macs – and I’m personally indifferent to them – the cost is a little higher, although even then the difference isn’t as great as folks in Redmond would want you to believe. But the underlying OS is built on the most rock-solid base available, the OpenBSD and NetBSD kernels. Security is better. Benchmarks are excellent. Stability? There’s no comparison. Upgrades are a snap. Ease of use is vastly superior. Number of software titles? Not so great.
We don’t currently have a Mac except for the Hackintosh I built just because. But my 80 year old father has one. It gives him what he needs and more, and I don’t have to worry much about it. It just works. And that’s worth something.January 21, 2010 5:19 am at 5:19 am #673182
granted linux does have more capabilities in the department of parallel processing , and like i said the graphics companies make all of their high end graphics linux compatible. however, open source programming just does not match up to the powerful tools that are available for mac and windows currently. halevai in the future, but not yet, and therefore for any serious graphic design, windows or mac (for 10x the price) is the way to go.
as for mac. yes. an OS based upon a single kernel, with the rest of it essentially being “add ons” does make for a more secure OS. however like i have said, mac is impractical for other reasons. yes mac was made to be user friendly for even the most novice user (except for those of you that have gotten used to the right click in windows…then mac is just downright frustrating…lol) however it lacks the power of windows.
as for your hackintosh…i am truly jealous. i have been trying to make a hackintosh out of that desktop i mentioned above, and each time it stops at the frowny face telling me to restart. i have a processor that (obviously) supports sse3, i have looked up my chipset and it is indeed compatible with mac…what am i doing wrong? some tips would be appreciated. currently i am A+ certified, but that only covers windows. i would like to learn mac…but i need a computer to practice on. if you could help me with that please post here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.